[541] can be identified with a law ^awhich in itself is absolute. It is even easier to apply this to the problem of freedom, where the question is always not only "freedom from what?" but also "freedom FOR what?"---and then a very large amount of possible answers are given. The middle principles are matters of wisdom^b. They are matters of human experience, and they are products of a pragmatic situation. Now let's say we adhere to one of these middle axioms, or to these creations of wisdom, and come to a very concrete situation---not "very," it is not a very good word, but "absolutely" concrete situation---to the here and now. THERE AGAIN we are in the alternative: do we apply, in the relationship to another being, an abstract law, which

is certainly a matter of wisdom but not necessarily the only possible expression of love? Or do we LISTEN to the concrete situation and try to derive from this situation a hint to what love demands in this moment? We shouldn't do this arbitrarily---CERTAINLY not. But we should do it always IN CONSIDERATION of the wisdom of mankind, because this wisdom has experience that TRESPASSING of the laws can mean self-destruction, and destruction of others. But there is ALSO the principle of love^c, which in all periods of history has shown that trespassing of a given law is a way in which LOVE is actualized. Jesus, in his fight with the Pharisees and their laws, continuously deals with such problems.

Now I think this is the great realm of the CONTENTS of the law. Here I want to show what is the subject matter of this lecture anyhow, namely that autonomous morals need a depth- dimension, the dimension of something ultimate which gives the content and at the same time liberates from every law which identifies the unconditional demand with a special law. What we really have done here was an attempt where I leave it to your thought, and your experience even more, whether this is a way of overcoming the destructive conflict between moral absolutism which identifies the ultimate with a table of laws, on the one hand; and moral relativism which makes everything depend on the cultural contents.